Ice Hockey Goaltender Physiology Profile and Physical Testing: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International Journal of Exercise Science 14(6): 855-875, 2021. This review aims to 1) be the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature examining the physiology and assessment of goaltenders, and 2) present a physiological profile of ice-hockey goaltenders. It will 1) highlight physiological differences between goaltenders and players at other positions, 2) determine strengths and weaknesses of ice hockey goaltenders, and 3) offer possible guidelines for strength and conditioning coaches. Six electronic databases were systematically searched in October 2019 using the PRISMA model. A total of twelve scientific articles published in peer-reviewed journals were included. Professional male (PM) goaltenders had the following profile for age (A) 26.8 ± 2.5 years, body weight (BW) 85.64 ± 3.79 kg, height (H) 184.38 ± 2.79 cm, body fat % (BF%) 11.9 ± 2.22, VO2max 49.9 ± 4.45 ml/kg/min, anaerobic power (AP) 12.78 ± 1.63 W/kg, and combined hand grip strength (GS) 120.7 ± 15 kg. Amateur male (AM) goaltenders presented the following: A: 18.2 ± 0.75, BW: 83.85 ± 4.51, H: 184.96 ± 2.06, BF%: 10.51 ± 1.61, VO2max: 55.73 ± 4.57, AP: 10.9 ± 1.2 and GS: 109.08 ± 14.06. Amateur female (AF) goaltenders presented the following: A: 21.04 ± 1.84, BW: 63.4 ± 5.14, H: 164.86 ± 5.73, BF%: 22.12 ± 2.27 and VO2max: 42.84 ± 3.59. Overall, PM goaltenders are heavier, have a higher BF%, and exhibit greater GS and abdominal muscular endurance than AM, while AM goaltenders are heavier, taller, leaner, and can generate greater lower-body muscular power than AF goaltenders. In the current literature, there were a small number of studies on women players and a lack of distinction between player position in reported results. Specific physiological assessments during NHL Combines should be developed for goaltenders in accordance with their specific positional demands.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".